Since the Pennsylvania legislature has joined the case with Texas, because the Gov. unilaterally changed election laws, by your explanation gives, this is standing.
The real issue has yet to be answered. Can entities change election laws outside of the State legislature, that disenfranchise voters by illegal dilution, be held accountable BEFORE the permanent damage of that crime? Can you win by Fraud and crime? If illegal voting practices organized nationwide damage everyone’s 14th Amendment and civil rights, how do they collectively get remedy?
If crime can win elections, then by all means let the States that violated the Constitution seat electors. If they did illegal acts, they can’t seat electors, and that means nobody gets to 270. The 12 th Amendment is a solution for the problem of failure to achieve 270.
Historically the writers and signers of the Constitution knew it would serve a moral and just people. There is nothing moral or just in breaking the election laws, and expecting your voice to be heard by that act. This isn’t CO2, this isn’t a maybe, this was an organized criminal act to deprive people of their right to a free election.
The water rising few inches a century can be dealt with. This type of damage is irreparable, it will lead to the end of the Republic. These are the types of issues that required formation of the Judicial as an equal branch in the first place. They can’t ignore it, because silence will lead to violence.
If the SC punts this they will only be making the situation worse by failing to address the problem.
The leftists will never self-regulate, they can’t because they believe so absolutely in their own moral superiority. They believe they have a right and a duty to rule over the rest of us by any means necessary. Failure of political leaders to recognize this will destroy this nation.
That would have helped with standing, but that is not what happened. Some members of the PA legislature requested leave to file amicus curae briefs. That is not the same as becoming a party. The standing of an amicus filer is irrelevant because they aren’t parties.
The ideal situation for an Electors Clause suit would be for the PA legislature, or some of its members, to have sued the PA Secretary of State (not the state itself) in state or federal district court (not directly in the Supreme Court), ideally before the election. But that didn’t happen, for whatever reason.
Trump or his campaign may also be proper plaintiffs to such a suit, although there is some dispute on that. The campaign in fact did sue in federal court. The Electors’ Clause claim in federal Court was dismissed for lack of standing—the district judge held that only the legislature has standing for that claim, and the campaign did not really argue against that in the district court. The campaign appealed the case to the 3rd Circuit, but they did not appeal that ruling.